Evaluation of optimal education level to implement structured reporting into ultrasound training.

AIMS: Reporting of head and neck ultrasound (HNU) has been outlined to be a major obstacle during ultrasound training due to a lack of standardized structure, content and terminology. Consequently, overall report quality differs significantly between various examiners posing a severe risk factor for information loss and miscommunication. Therefore, the present study's purpose is to compare the overall quality of free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR) of HNU at various stages of training in order to determine the optimal educational level to implement SR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Typical pathologies in HNU were reported upon using SR and FTR by medical students, junior residents and senior residents. The reports were assessed for overall quality, time efficiency and readability. Additionally, user satisfaction was determined using a questionnaire. RESULTS: SRs exhibited a significantly superior report quality (93.1% vs. 45.6%, p<0.001) at all training levels. Overall time efficiency was significantly better for SRs, especially at the stages of medical school and early residency (89.4 s vs. 160.2 s., p<0.001). Using structured reporting also increased user satisfaction significantly (VAS 8.6 vs. 3.9, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing structured reporting of HNU results in a superior report quality at all training stages. Greatest benefits for time efficiency are achieved by implementation during medical school. Therefore, structured reporting of HNU should be implemented early on in the training of HNU.

The use of structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound ensures time-efficiency and report quality during residency.

PURPOSE: Free text reports (FTR) of head and neck ultrasound studies are currently deployed in most departments. Because of a lack of composition and language, these reports vary greatly in terms of quality and reliability. This may impair the learning process during residency. The purpose of the study was to analyze the longitudinal effects of using structured reports (SR) of head and neck ultrasound studies during residency. METHODS: Attending residents (n = 24) of a tripartite course on head and neck ultrasound, accredited by the German Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM), were randomly allocated to pictures of common diseases. Both SRs and FTRs were compiled. All reports were analyzed concerning completeness, acquired time and legibility. Overall user contentment was evaluated by a questionnaire. RESULTS: SRs achieved significantly higher ratings regarding completeness (95.6% vs. 26.4%, p < 0.001), description of pathologies (72.2% vs. 58.9%, p < 0.001) and legibility (100% vs. 52.4%, p < 0.001) with a very high inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' kappa 0.9). Reports were finalized significantly faster (99.1 s vs. 115.0 s, p < 0.001) and user contentment was significantly better when using SRs (8.3 vs. 6.3, p < 0.001). In particular, only SRs showed a longitudinally increasing time efficiency (- 20.1 s, p = 0.036) while maintaining consistent completeness ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SRs of head and neck ultrasound studies results in an increased longitudinal time-efficiency while upholding the report quality at the same time. This may indicate an additive learning effect of structured reporting. Superior outcomes in terms of comprehensiveness, legibility and time-efficiency can be observed immediately after implementation.

Impact of structured reporting on developing head and neck ultrasound skills.

BACKGROUND: Reports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. This is a serious obstacle to the learning process of the modality due to a missing report structure and terminology. Therefore, there is a great inter-observer variability in overall report quality. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of structured reporting on the learning process as indicated by the overall report quality of head and neck ultrasound examinations within medical school education. METHODS: Following an immersion course on head and neck ultrasound, previously documented images of three common pathologies were handed out to 58 medical students who asked to create both standard free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR). A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion and readability by two independent raters (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI). Ratings were assessed for inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' kappa). Additionally, a questionnaire was utilized to evaluate user satisfaction. RESULTS: SRs received significantly better ratings in terms of report completeness (97.7% vs. 53.5%, p < 0.001) regarding all items. In addition, pathologies were described in more detail using SRs (70% vs. 51.1%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 54.4%, p < 0.001). Mean time to complete was significantly lower (79.6 vs. 205.4 s, p < 0.001) and user satisfaction was significantly higher when using SRs (8.5 vs. 4.1, p < 0.001). Also, inter-rater reliability was very high (Fleiss' kappa 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations provide more detailed information with a better readability in a time-saving manner within medical education. Also, medical students may benefit from SRs in their learning process due to the structured approach and standardized terminology.

Structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations.

BACKGROUND: Reports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. Naturally, quality and structure of free text reports is variable, depending on the examiner's individual level of experience. Aim of the present study was to compare the quality of free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR) of head and neck ultrasound examinations. METHODS: Both standard FTRs and SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations of 43 patients were acquired by nine independent examiners with comparable levels of experience. A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion, and readability by four independent raters with different specializations (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI) and inter-rater reliability was assessed (Fleiss' kappa). A questionnaire was used to compare FTRs vs. SRs with respect to user satisfaction (Mann-Whitney U test, 95% CI). RESULTS: By comparison, completeness scores of SRs were significantly higher than FTRs' completeness scores (94.4% vs. 45.6%, p < 0.001), and pathologies were described in more detail (91.1% vs. 54.5%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001). The mean time to complete a report, however, was significantly higher in SRs (176.5 vs. 107.3 s, p < 0.001). SRs achieved significantly higher user satisfaction ratings (VAS 8.87 vs. 1.41, p < 0.001) and a very high inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' kappa 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: As compared to FTRs, SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations are more comprehensive and easier to understand. On the balance, the additional time needed for completing a SR is negligible. Also, SRs yield high inter-rater reliability and may be used for high-quality scientific data analyses.